sociological approaches to the study of drug use and drug policy
TRANSCRIPT
E
S
dARhr(DRhsvt
smpmmnactehhghd
aaoicmpstwa
itwo
0d
International Journal of Drug Policy 22 (2011) 399– 403
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Drug Policy
jo ur n al homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /drugpo
ditorial
ociological approaches to the study of drug use and drug policy
can be analytically divorced from their social settings. Durkheim
Sociology has contributed much to the study of drug use andependence, as numerous reviews can attest (e.g. Adrian, 2003;llen, 2007; Bergeron, 2009; Faupel, Horowitz, & Weaver, 2004;hodes, 2009; Weinberg, 2011). However, the study of drug policyas often been left to economists, with assistance from operationalesearchers, public policy specialists, lawyers and psychologistse.g. Boyum & Reuter, 2005; Caulkins, Tragler, & Wallner, 2009;onohue, Ewing, & Peloquin, 2011; Kleiman, 2009; MacCoun &euter, 2001). As Peter Reuter recently stated, whilst economicsas provided useful contributions to the analysis of the drug tradeeen as a market, economists have too often failed to question orerify the – often grand – assumptions that they tend to bring tohe study of these markets (Reuter, 2011).
Readers will be familiar with the standard critique of the clas-ical homo economicus who seeks only to maximise pleasure andinimise pain, who is miraculously perfectly informed and whose
references add up smoothly with those of others to create opti-al equlibria of social welfare. They may well be aware that thisodel is at odds with social and economic reality: that people do
ot always act in their own best interests; that they can be ignorantnd irrational in their use of information; and that this irrationalityan be multiplied when it is shared with others (this is to say thathey may have lived through the bank crashes of 2008 with theiryes open). Defenders of economics will retort that the critique ofomo economicus is hopelessly outdated and that the dismal scienceas updated itself through the influx of experiments that informame theory and behavioural economics. Indeed, these advancesave borne fruit in interesting approaches, such as those applied toeterrence and sanctioning by Kleiman (2009).
However, even though economists may have updated theirssumptions on individuals, they are still (in general) stuck with
vision of the context in which these humans operate that is asut of touch with social reality as the idea of homo economicuss with humanity. Economic models play out in flat, hypotheti-al social worlds where ceteris paribus rules. See, for example, theonochrome checkers board inhabited by Kleiman’s theoretical
robationers. This is not a world where people are striving to createocial reality through bending divergent environmental resourceso their felt needs and embodied expectations. It is rather a world inhich people respond directly to stimuli that are applied to them
s to units in a gigantic calculator.Sociology provides a broader – although often less well spec-
fied – approach to these issues. It recognises that people choose
heir behaviours, not just in response to external stimuli, but inays that enable them to create their own meaningful experiencef life (Giddens, 1984). It draws attention to the range of resources
955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.10.003
in people’s lives that they draw on in creating these experiences. Itshows how people can share common ways of making choices, butthat the outcomes of these choice processes can be fundamentallydifferent according to the features of class, gender, race and thevarious forms of capital to which they have access. And sociologyis also fundamentally questioning of the origins of the environ-ments within which these choices are made. Whilst economicallyinformed analyses tend to reify the current legal framework of pro-hibition, sociologists must ask how this framework has come to be.What are its conditions of existence, and by which mechanisms isit reproduced?
These are the kinds of questions that were asked at a specialworkshop of the International Society of the Study of Drug Policy inSanta Monica in March 2010. The papers presented there help shapethis special issue (MacGregor & Thickett, 2011; Measham, Williams,& Aldridge, 2011; Nasir, Rosenthal, & Moore, 2011; Seddon, 2011;Vander Laenen, 2011). These are supplemented by other arti-cles (Chen, 2011; Fraser & Moore, 2011; Järvinen & Fynbo, 2011;Lunnay, 2011; McKenna, 2011; Rhodes et al., 2011) and edito-rials (Duff, 2011; Hammersley, 2011; Keane, 2011; Race, 2011).Taken together, this special issue aims to promote discussion andadvancement of the contribution of sociological theory and meth-ods to the study of drug use as well as the development andeffects of drug policies. This editorial introduction aims to dis-cuss sociological concepts and methods that have the potential tocontribute to the study of drug policy. The articles which followwill then allow readers to judge whether this potential is beingfulfilled.
Structure, agency and drug policy: the call formethodological structuralism
Of course, there are multiple versions of sociological theory thatcould contribute to the study of drug policy (as exemplified in thepapers presented in this issue). I will suggest in this brief intro-duction that the key contribution that is common to all of themfollows the emphasis of Émile Durkheim on the necessity of provid-ing social explanations for the existence of patterned regularities insocieties. Just as he found that it would be impossible to explain pat-terns of suicide (or its regulation) without attending to the factorsthat operate at the level of the group rather than the individual,so sociologists can see that neither drug use nor its prohibition
was notoriously prone to providing ‘oversocialised’ (Wrong, 1961)explanations which neglected the role of individual agency increating these social patterns, just as economists have provided
4 l of D
‘htosh
am–itaeharwtfcdt
tseb1ccatilc
ntssi(im1tc
cdpb
The work of Bourdieu, Habermas and Giddens, as that of manyother sociologists, calls into question the reification of contempo-rary social institutions, such as drug laws and policies. Examples
00 Editorial / International Journa
undersocialised’ (Granovetter, 1992) analyses of drug policy whichave assumed that we are impervious to the influence of social rela-ions that operate within markets and other institutions. The workf Pierre Bourdieu encompasses a consistent attempt to overcomeuch antinomies, as suggested by Loïc Wacquant’s paraphrase ofis approach:
“Cumulative exposure to certain social conditions instils in indi-viduals an ensemble of durable and transposable dispositionsthat internalize the necessities of the extant social environment,inscribing inside the organism the patterned inertia and con-straints of external reality . . . An adequate science of societymust encompass both objective regularities and the processof internalization of objectivity whereby the transindividual,unconscious principles of (di)vision that agents engage in theirpractice are constituted.” (Wacquant, 1992, p. 13)
In The Logic of Practice (1990) and other works, Bourdieu encour-ges the use of ‘methodological structuralism’ which – though itakes no assumptions about the ontological nature of social reality
posits that the best approach for understanding social action andnstitutions is to develop logical models that account for the pat-ern of observed facts (Lizardo, 2010). He argues that people learnbout how to be and how to act within the limitations that theirnvironment sets for them. We can create sociological models thatelp us to understand, explain and even predict these patternedctions. These models are distinctively sociological because theyefer to the influence on action of the web of social relations withinhich people act.1 Bourdieu provides us with a way to think about
he social conditions that both drug policy makers and drug usersace and then reproduce in their turn. What dispositions do theseonditions lead them to internalise? What principles of vision andivision do they then use when they come to perceive and act onhe social world?
In his sociological practice, Bourdieu also emphasised the needo examine the actions of elites and hierarchies in recreating theocial world which shapes and constrains us all. His gaze fell onlite academics (Bourdieu, 1996) and (via Norbert Elias) on mem-ers of the court of the French kings of the ancien régime (Bourdieu,998, p. 27). Our gaze could equally fall on the research bodies thatreate the drug use statistics and concepts of addiction that informurrent drug policy, or on the entourages of the various nationalnd international drug ‘tsars’ in the current regime of drug con-rol. Indeed, the creation of drug laws themselves could be seen,n Habermasian terms, as an attempt to resolve crises in politicalegitimacy that occur when people’s consumption preferences runounter to legislators’ wishes and interests.
Habermas (1996) differentiated administrative from commu-icative power, with the former expressing power through thehreat of sanctions and the latter through deliberative consen-us. Strategic use of administrative power (such as the creation ofelectively prohibitive drug laws) leads to a “steering trilemma”n which the administration’s instructions are (firstly) not obeyed,secondly) lead to further disorganisation and (thirdly) thesenstructions overstretch the capacity of the legal system and under-
ine normative foundations of the political system (Habermas,
996, p. 446). We see just such a trilemma – with its attendanthreat to the legitimacy of state power – in people’s wilful non-ompliance with laws that ban them from possessing and trading1 They are therefore fundamentally different to the ‘pure’ form of methodologi-ally individualistic economic models, in which – according to Friedman (1966) – itoes not matter if the assumptions do not hold, as long as the model is sufficientlyredictive. The problem is, of course, that many economic models fail to predictehaviour precisely because their assumptions are unrealistic.
rug Policy 22 (2011) 399– 403
in illicit substances, and the consequent overloading of the criminaljustice system in countries which aggressively enforce these laws(e.g. the USA and Russia). In these circumstances, social actors whohave privileged access to the process of law making seek to regaintheir legitimacy by creating laws which putatively represent normsthat would be agreed through free deliberation, even though theyoften do not rest on the actual practice of such disinterested com-municative action. So the crises that are an inevitable consequenceof the instrumental operation of capitalist markets are regulated,in part, through the use of laws (of which drug laws are a subset)that seek to justify the exercise of administrative power. This isan example of the kind of sociological model that Bourdieu calledfor to explain the observable facts; in this case, the facts of drugpolicy. It offers us a way to explore not only the development andtrajectory of national and international drug policies but also pre-dicts the existence of the disorganising ‘unintended consequences’that they have been observed to have, even by their most powerfulproponents (Costa, 2008).
It is worth inserting a short discussion here of the concept ofunintended consequences as they are so often observed and dis-cussed in drug policy. Such outcomes have long been a subject ofsociological enquiry. Merton (1936) was not the first to observe thatunforeseen consequences are not necessarily unwelcome for somepeople, or that social action is not always aimed at a clearly fore-seen goal. Giddens (1984) used Thomas Schelling’s2 (1978) modelof ethnic residential segregation to show how social conditions canoccur – when they are not consciously chosen and pursued – asa result of “an aggregate of acts . . . each of which is intentionallycarried out [e.g. people moving to neighbourhoods where they arenot in the minority]. But the eventual outcome is neither intendednor desired by anyone. It is . . . everyone’s doing and no one’s”(Giddens, 1984, p. 11). Giddens’ theory of structuration suggeststhat “unintended consequences may systematically feed back tobe the unacknowledged conditions of further acts” (Giddens, 1984,p. 8). In contemporary drug policy, we see a large variety of out-comes that were not explicitly intended by drug policy makers, butpersist and continue to feed back into the actions of people whoengage in policy debates. A well-known contemporary example isthe ethnic disproportion in drug law enforcement. It is unlikely that,if put to the vote, US and British citizens would consciously chooseto over-incarcerate people of African heritage, but this has beenthe result of a combination of laws and social policies that havebeen chosen by the people with the power to influence legislationand public expenditure. The fact that this over-incarceration dam-ages both the social status of black people and their ability to takepart in policy debates (especially in those US states where drug lawoffenders are automatically disenfranchised) feeds back into poli-cies that may further exacerbate inequality, as well as inspire socialmovements of resistance to it (Stevens, 2011a).
Reification, ideology and the inequality of drug harms
2 The use of Schelling’s model of micromotives by Giddens and other sociologists(e.g. Hedström & Bearman, 2009) shows that individualistic game theory does havesomething to contribute to sociological understandings. But it is important to notethat the set of problems that are amenable to analysis through the application of such“simplistic complexity” does not exhaust the range of interesting questions in theanalysis of drug policy. It cannot take account of causes that emerge in the interactionbetween systems and sub-systems. Such macro-level interactions require attentionto the trajectory of cases and are more amenable to analysis through qualitativecomparative analysis (Byrne, 2005), as recently exemplified by Varese’s (2011) studyof the transplantation of organised crime groups between countries.
l of D
ob&oipmFwtgppomt
aicatoctma2pgCtdlW
itddotmtoisS2Bcpiap
S
stpai‘
Editorial / International Journa
f such reification include important books by Edwards (2004) andy three leading researchers on US drug policy (Kleiman, Caulkins,
Hawken, 2011). These books excellently outline both the failuref current drug policies to achieve their stated aims of eliminat-ng illicit drug use and some of the harms which these policiesroduce. But they baulk at taking the next logical step of recom-ending experimentation with new forms of regulation (see Hall,
ischer, Lenton, Reuter, & Room, 2011). They both argue that thisould represent a dangerous step into the unknown. This seems
o accept the current international framework of prohibition as aiven fact which requires less explanation and justification than anyossible alternative would. It ignores the configuration of sectionalrofessional and national interests which led to the initial creationf prohibition, as has so usefully been documented by social andedical historians such as Berridge (1999), Courtwright (2001) and
he late Musto (1999).In the presentation of current social arrangements as immutable
nd inevitable, non-sociological analyses show how drug policy andts representations can operate as ideology. This key sociologicaloncept – which has been declared dead so often that its obituarieslmost outweigh its expositions – still offers a powerful concep-ual lens through which to view the creation and implementationf drug policy. We see that harms – both of drug use and of drugontrol – are distributed unequally within and between nations. Inhe affluent countries of the global North, it is the poor and ethnic
inorities who suffer most from drug-related morbidity, mortality,rrest and imprisonment (Alexander, 2010; Singer, 2008; Stevens,011a). These harms are significant, but far more poverty-strickeneople suffer in the drug producing and transit countries of thelobal South: from displacement, destitution and armed conflict inolombia, Afghanistan and Burma/Myanmar; from the destabilisa-ion of fragile states in West Africa; from the spectacularly brutalrug wars at Mexico’s northern border; and from a widespread
ack of opiate analgesics to patients that need them (Human Rightsatch, 2009).According to Thompson’s (1990) formulation of the concept,
deology involves the production of symbolic forms which serveo sustain systematically asymmetrical relations of power. Theeep and enduring inequalities referred to here are not only repro-uced by drug policy, but are (in line with both Habermas’ ideasn steering trilemmas and Giddens’ ideas on feedback from unin-ended consequences) then taken by some powerful drug policy
akers as justifications for implementing even more dispropor-ionate measures which serve to further deepen the inequalityf drug related harms. A few examples out of the many possiblellustrations include the merging of criminal justice and treatmentystems in both the USA and the UK (Bourgois & Schonberg, 2009;tevens, 2007), the militarised expansion of Plan Colombia (Stokes,005) and the immiseration of farmers and an epidemic of HIV inurma/Myanmar (Kramer, Jelsma, & Blickman, 2009). These poli-ies do not just have effects on the scale and distribution of drug use,roduction and harms. They also reinforce certain ways of think-
ng about drug users and producers. They constitute such peoples a threat to the healthy social body and so serve to justify otherolicies which seek to exclude and control them.
ociological methods and drug policy
These brief applications of the concepts of methodologicaltructuralism, structuration and ideology suggest that sociologicalheory offers useful, broad conceptual frameworks within which to
lace the study of drug policy. But these frameworks need data andnalysis in order to apply them to the actual practice of drug pol-cy. Here again, we can make a distinction between the methods ofpure’ positivist economics and the practice of sociology. Even therug Policy 22 (2011) 399– 403 401
most sophisticated and interesting econometric drug policy mod-els (e.g. Dray et al., in press) tend to abstract from individuals tocreate homogeneous multitudes of agents who respond to stim-uli according to probabilistic rules that are set for them within themodel. These rules are sometimes derived as generalisations frombehavioural surveys that are of questionable value in understand-ing people’s actions and motivations in performing illicit, hiddenand stigmatised behaviours (Young, 2004). If – again followingGiddens – we refuse to conceptualise humans as merely obeyingprobabilistic rules, but rather see them as agents who are capableof bending any rules to their own needs (whether unconscious orexplicit), then we need to make space for the close study of humanbehaviour in situ.
In addition to the survey, sociologists have developed (often byappropriation from other fields, with anthropology being a pri-mary source) a variety of methods by which to examine howand why people behave as they do. It is perhaps the commit-ment to understanding people’s actions from their own point ofview that most distinguishes sociological from other methods forexamining drug policy. The most straightforward methods thatare used to create such Verstehen involve simply asking people todescribe and account for their actions, most often through formsof structured or semi-structured interview. But the problems ofthis approach are numerous. They include the tendency for inter-viewees to create second order accounts which conform to theexpectations of the interviewer and especially to the implicit beliefthat actions must always have ‘reasoned reasons’. It is for this rea-son that phenomenological sociologists have explained that theyseek rather to understand social action through ‘first order’, spon-taneous accounts of lived experience. Such accounts do not demandthat interviewees account for themselves, but rather take seriouslythe ways in which research subjects communicate their own mean-ings in their own natural expressions (Allen, 2007). The searchbecomes one for methods in which such natural experiences andmeanings can be gathered. The various techniques of ethnographyhave provided a wealth of such data, and new techniques involving,for example, visual and participatory methods are being devel-oped (Dowmunt, Dunford, & van Hemert, 2007; Ferrell, Hayward,& Young, 2008; Pink, 2007). This is not to say that the more tradi-tional interview has been abandoned. But it has become commonfor sociologists to acknowledge and interpret the co-production ofinterview data in the interaction between researcher and subject(Holstein & Gubrium, 1995), and to pay attention to the narratives(whether fictional or not) that people create in interviews (Presser,2009).
All these techniques are applicable to the study of drug policymakers, just as they are to the study of drug users and traffick-ers. If drug use and dealing is often hidden from the researchers’gaze, then so too is the process of drug policy making. This oftentakes place behind closed doors amongst people who occupy the‘higher circles’ (Mills, 1956) of society. They are well able to restrictand resist the activities of researchers. They may not be inclinedto award funding to research that questions their activities, ratherthan those of the usual subjects of addiction research. Neverthe-less, there have been useful direct studies of the actions of drugpolicy makers (e.g. Bergeron, 2011; Chatwin, 2011; Kübler, 2001;MacGregor, 2011; Monaghan, 2008; Ritter, 2009; Stevens, 2011b;Valentine, 2009). They have shown that methods of interview-ing, documentary analysis and participant observation can providevaluable insights into the self-understandings of these policy mak-ers and their actions.
There is a danger in emphasising the value of ‘studying upwards’
in drug policy that we forget that drug policy is not just thecontent of decisions and documents that are produced by politi-cians and bureaucrats. Drug policy also consists of the combinationof individual interactions that take place within the framework
4 l of D
ptinutigtw
C
rstitatdsrhedt
R
A
A
A
BB
B
BBBB
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
02 Editorial / International Journa
rovided by these instruments of power. Sociologists working inhe afterglow of Michel Foucault’s revelatory work on sexuality,mprisonment and mental health have emphasised that power isot just a force that travels from the top downwards. It runs throughs and is continually produced and reproduced in our bodily prac-ices and utterances. It is therefore necessary to study drug policyn all the contexts that it is produced and practised; in the halls ofovernment, in the rooms of residential and other institutions ofreatment and correction and in the slums, skyscrapers and streetshere drugs are traded and used (see, for example, Bourgois, 2000).
onclusion
The spread of articles in this issue across countries, locales,esearch methods, samples and theoretical backgrounds demon-trates some of the multiple ways in which sociology can be broughto bear on issues of drug policy and use. They highlight the crucialnfluence of social contexts on the elaboration of drug policies andheir effects. They reveal some of the interplay of structure andgency and the potential of sociological models to help us charac-erise and understand such complex interactions. They show howrug policies are the outcomes of specific conjunctures of political,ocio-economic and cultural factors that are spatially and tempo-ally specific and are open to change through social action. It isoped that they demonstrate that sociology has a place – alongsideconomics and various other approaches to policy analysis – in theevelopment of knowledge about drug policies and so in the efforto improve them.
eferences
drian, M. (2003). How can sociological theory help our understanding of addictions.Substance Use and Misuse, 38(10), 1385–1423.
lexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblind-ness. New York: The New Press.
llen, C. (2007). Crime, drugs and social theory: A phenomenological approach. Alder-shot: Ashgate.
ergeron, H. (2009). Sociologie de la Drogue. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.ergeron, H. (2011). The culture of drug policy. In G. Hunt, M. Millet, & H. Bergeron
(Eds.), Drugs and culture: Knowledge, consumption and policy. Farnham: Ashgate.erridge, V. (1999). Opium and the people. Revised edition. London: Free Association
Books.ourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.ourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility. Cambridge: Polity Press.ourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.ourgois, P. (2000). Disciplining addictions: The bio-politics of methadone and
heroin in the United States. Culture Medicine and Psychiatry, 24(2), 165–195.ourgois, P. & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous dopefiend. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.oyum, D. & Reuter, P. (2005). An analytic assessment of U.S. drug policy. Washington,
DC: The AEI Press.yrne, D. (2005). Complexity, configurations and cases. Theory, Culture & Society,
22(5), 95–111.aulkins, J. P., Tragler, G. & Wallner, D. (2009). Optimal timing of use reduction vs.
harm reduction in a drug epidemic model. International Journal of Drug Policy,20(6), 480–487.
hatwin, C. (2011). Drug policy harmonization and the European Union. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
hen, J.-s. (2011). Studying up harm reduction policy: The office as an assemblage.International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 471–477.
osta, A. M. (2008). Making drug control ‘fit for purpose’: Building on the UNGASSdecade. Report by the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime as a contribution to the review of the twentieth special session of the GeneralAssembly. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
ourtwright, D. T. (2001). Forces of habit: Drugs and the making of the modern world.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
onohue, J. J., Ewing, B., & Peloquin, D. (2011). Rethinking America’s illegal drug policy.NBER Working Paper No. 16776. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of EconomicResearch.
owmunt, T., Dunford, M., & van Hemert, N. (Eds.). (2007). Inclusion through media.London: Goldsmiths, University of London.
ray, A., Perez, P., Moore, D., Dietze, P., Bammer, G., Jenkinson, R., et al. (2012).Are drug detection dogs and mass-media campaigns likely to be effec-tive policy responses to psychostimulant use and related harm? Resultsfrom an agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Drug Policy,doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.05.018, in press.
rug Policy 22 (2011) 399– 403
Duff, C. (2011). Reassembling (social) contexts: New directions for a sociology ofdrugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 404–406.
Edwards, G. (2004). Matters of substance: Drugs – and why everyone’s a user. Picador.Faupel, C. E., Horowitz, A. M. & Weaver, G. (2004). The sociology of American drug use.
New York: McGraw-Hill.Ferrell, J., Hayward, K. & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology: An invitation. London:
Sage.Fraser, S. & Moore, D. (2011). Governing through problems: The formulation of policy
on amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) in Australia. International Journal of DrugPolicy, 22(6), 498–506.
Friedman, M. (1966). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.),Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Cambridge: Polity Press.
Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic action and social structure: The problem ofembeddedness. In M. Granovetter, & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The sociology of economiclife. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory oflaw and democracy. (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, W., Fischer, B., Lenton, S., Reuter, P. & Room, R. (2011). Making space forcannabis policy experiments. Addiction, 106(6), 1192–1193.
Hammersley, R. (2011). Developing a sociology of normal substance use. Interna-tional Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 413–414.
Hedström, P. & Bearman, P. (2009). What is analytical sociology all about? An intro-ductory essay. In P. Hedström, & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook ofanalytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Human Rights Watch. (2009). “Please, do not make us suffer any more . . .”Access to
Pain Treatment as a Human Right. New York: Human Rights Watch.Järvinen, M. & Fynbo, L. (2011). Self-governance, control and loss of control amongst
drink-drivers. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 437–444.Keane, H. (2011). The politics of visibility: Drug users and the spaces of drug use.
International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 407–409.Kleiman, M. A. R. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less
punishment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Kleiman, M. A. R., Caulkins, J. P. & Hawken, A. (2011). Drugs and drug policy: What
everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kramer, T., Jelsma, M. & Blickman, T. (2009). Withdrawal symptoms in the golden
triangle: A drugs market in disarray. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition frame-
work: An application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4),623–641.
Lizardo, O. (2010). Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bour-dieu, and Sewell. Theory and Society, 39(6), 651–688.
Lunnay, B., Ward, P. & Borlagdan, J. (2011). The practise and practice of Bourdieu:The application of social theory to youth alcohol research. International Journalof Drug Policy, 22(6), 428–436.
MacCoun, R. J. & Reuter, P. (2001). Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times& places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacGregor, S. (2011). The impact of research on policy in the drugs field. Method-ological Innovations Online, 6(1), 41–57.
MacGregor, S. & Thickett, A. (2011). Partnerships and communities in English drugpolicy: The challenge of deprivation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6),478–490.
McKenna, S. A. (2011). Maintaining class, producing gender: Enhancement dis-courses about amphetamine in entertainment media. International Journal ofDrug Policy, 22(6), 455–462.
Measham, F., Williams, L. & Aldridge, J. (2011). Marriage, mortgage, motherhood:What longitudinal studies can tell us about gender, drug ‘careers’ and the nor-malisation of adult ‘recreational’ drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy,22(6), 420–427.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action.American Sociological Review, 6(1), 894–904.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Monaghan, M. (2008). Appreciating cannabis: The paradox of evidence in evidence-
based policy making. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice,4, 209–231.
Musto, D. (1999). The American disease: The origins of narcotics control. New York:Oxford University Press.
Nasir, S., Rosenthal, D. & Moore, T. (2011). The social context of controlled druguse amongst young people in a slum area in Makassar, Indonesia. InternationalJournal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 463–470.
Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 177–200.Race, K. (2011). Drug effects, performativity and the law. International Journal of Drug
Policy, 22(6), 410–412.Reuter, P. (2011). Are drug markets different. Plenary address. In Fifth annual con-
ference of the international society for the study of drug policy Utrecht,Rhodes, T. (2009). Risk environments and drug harms: A social science for harm
reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 193–201.Rhodes, T., Bivol, S., Scutelniciuc, O., Hunt, N., Bernays, S. & Busza, J. (2011). Narrating
the social relations of initiating injecting drug use: Transitions in self and society.International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 445–454.
Ritter, A. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence? InternationalJournal of Drug Policy, 20(1), 70–75.
Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.
l of D
S
S
S
S
S
ST
V
V
V
Editorial / International Journa
eddon, T. (2011). Explaining drug policy: Towards an historical sociology of policychange. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 415–419.
inger, M. (2008). Drugging the poor: Legal and illegal drugs and social inequality. LongGrove, IL: Waveland Press.
tevens, A. (2007). When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug-related crime. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 77–99.
tevens, A. (2011a). Drugs, crime and public health: The political economy of drugpolicy. Abingdon: Routledge.
tevens, A. (2011b). Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use ofevidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40(2), 237–256.
tokes, D. (2005). America’s other war. Terrorizing Colombia. London: Zed Books.hompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era
of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.alentine, K. (2009). Evidence, values and drug treatment policy. Critical Social Policy,
29(3), 443–464.ander Laenen, F. (2011). How drug policy should (not) be: Institutionalised young
people’s perspectives. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(6), 491–497.arese, F. (2011). Mafias on the move: How organized crime conquers new territories.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
rug Policy 22 (2011) 399– 403 403
Wacquant, L. (1992). Towards a social praxeology: The structure and logic of Bour-dieu’s sociology. In P. Bourdieu, & L. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexivesociology. Bristol: Polity Press.
Weinberg, D. (2011). Sociological perspectives on addiction. Sociology Compass, 5(4),298–310.
Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology.American Sociological Review, 26(2), 183–193.
Young, J. (2004). Voodoo criminology and the numbers game. In J. Ferrell, K. Hay-ward, W. Morrison, & M. Presdee (Eds.), Cultural criminology unleashed. London:Glasshouse Press.
Alex Stevens ∗
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research,University of Kent, Medway Campus, Chatham
Maritime, ME4 4AG, UK
∗ Tel.: +44 01634 888 988.E-mail address: [email protected]